Skip to main content

About your Search

English 30
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)
women will vote for another woman at their own peril, that they don't believe this will happen, which is one of the reasons why these three women are getting together. they're going to try and heparins get out the women's vote. if the matchup is hillary versus christie, is it a foregone conclusion that she's going to win the vast majority of the women's vote? >> i think most women wind up voting for democrats but it's a little more complicated than that. democrats dominate among minority women. latino women and african-american women pull it in for the democratic party. unmarried women are really the swing constituency in the overall female vote. >> imagine if they start to get out the vote with that group in much bigger numbers because they have not voted in huge numbers. >> typically democrats are very good at bringing ot constituencies. the issues where republicans have hurt themselves, not necessarily among married white women but unmarried women and that's a huge x factor that plays to hillary's advantage. >> i want to bring in donna edwards, democrat from maryland. congresswoman
of legislation this year. still on the sunday shows, democratic leaders stood firm. >> i don't think you can tell what will happen next year. but i will tell you this, democrats stand tall in support of the affordable care act. >> i think what you saw in the 39 people, maybe 9 people had real serious concerns. the fact of the matter is about 30 of them, and i've talked to them were insulating themselves against sound bites. >> i want to bring in "the new york times" political reporter nicholas confessoy and erin pallone. nick, you wonder, at this point, is it fair to say there may be democrats who would vote for repeal? >> well, you know, the question is repeal over what? right? it's a really big bill. i'm kind of skeptical that we're going to see a push for full repeal among democrats. we're talking about some of the coverage provisions, right? some of the provisions that apply to being denied things, things that require conditions. you're going to have democrats who are going to go on the record and vote against a lot of that among other things. also prevent you from denied care for being sick
be a former or current governor. >> i don't think anyone should become president that they haven't been a governor first. >> there's been discussion among the governors that the next president has to be a governor? do you agree with that? >> no. next question. >> so paul ryan does not agree, but for his part, christie has not been shy about answering questions about 2016, although in arizona his focus is anywhere, but there. >> i would think there are some people in this room that are encouraging you to look beyond just this job? >> oh, no. everyone here is laser focused kel kelly, on 2014. just do the best job you can in 2014, governor and everyone's been wonderful and really good. >> lois romano, senior reporter for politico. good morning. >> we know there is a historical argument, karen, for republicans. they have never elected a governor for president since harding. the reason we're hearing this so much in 2013 that congress is just so toxic? >> i think that's part of it. this also reminds me, though of the late 1990s when we saw a similar effort among republican governors. the part
. >> i had quite a long conversation, at least for me. i don't have many long conversations, but with the president last night, i was surprised when he called me so late, but yes, i feel very comfortable after having my conversation last night that it would be. >> and those new numbers we've been waiting for are low. 106,000 people have enrolled and only 26, 794 of them signed up on health, the federal site. before the numbers were even released house democrats lashed out at their own meeting. voices were raised and there was a little frustration said congressman patrick murphy, but another democrat who didn't want to be named said there is a brewing revolt among house democrats. the white house never has our back on these types of things. they have no plan b and no apparent fix. they're clueless. the president may indeed have a plan b and on friday a vote is planned on a bill sponsored by republican fred upton. t democrats are vying for another sloous solution. we need something to support, they, meaning the white house need to come up with something or many of us
to the negotiating table. basically we don't have a deal with iran and we've agreed to six months of negotiations to get to a deal. and i think if there isn't a deal after six months, the administration has put itself in a box and there will be either very heavy sanctions or military action against iran if there's no deal in six months. >> so high risk, high reward? >> correct. and that's been the style, at least for kerry so far. >> let me play for you what president obama had to say, some more of that from saturday night. >> these are substantial limitations which will help prevent iran from building a nuclear weapon. simply put, they cut off iran's most likely paths to a bomb. meanwhile, this first step will create time and space over the next six months for more negotiations to fully address our comprehensive concerns about the iranian program. >> dafna, this becomes kind of a game of what does substantial mean. there's a big difference of opinion. so the clock is ticking. as we just said, stakes are very high. what happens next? >> well, what happens next is the test and verify. so what we'r
thousand applications have been submitted but what we don't know is how many people have enrolled in obama care. you can bet the republicans will be asking that question. as we said, the administration is going to release those numbers next week. is this a transparency issue? is this a stalling issue? how big a deal is this number going to be? >> first of all, yes and yes to your questions. in the very short term it will be blown out of proportion because when people write the history of getting this program up and running, the first month enrollment figures probably is not going to withstand the test of history, because we kind of know the answer. the site is broken and you can't sign up, so the numbers probably won't be very impressive. and no matter what they are, you know, it would have been more if things were working. the reason that sebelius gave to the house panel last week under hostile questioning that was pushing her for this, chris, is that right now there's no accurate information. let's see if today she has a better answer. >> i want to bring in senator chris murphy, a democr
they can reissue those cancelled policies, they don't have to. and states can also say no. in fact washington's insurance commissioner has already said his state will, quote, stay the course. let me bring in our company. anne kornblut, josh kraashar, good morning. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> obviously republicans were having a field day with the line "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it." and with this fix and 24 hours of hindsight, do you think the president helped hiss, maybe even saved obama care yesterday? >> in the short run he's obviously taking a hit as you pointed out and has been for some time. oo i think the white house saw they were doing the only thing they could do, which is make adjustments as they went along. all along we've been comparing this to previous big rollouts, medicare part d being the most recent one. so from their perspective, yes, they at least bought themselves some time if didn't save it completely. i think we won't know the ultimate fate until we see how the website is working by the deadlines that they have promised later this
were it not for the shutdown and the brinksmanship. i don't think there is any economist, anyone in the business community that would debate that the shutdown was bad for the economy. if you looked at the growth estimates that we put out, they were actually more conservative in terms of the impact of the shut down than what many other forecasters like goldman sachs, standard & poor's, macro advisers had out there. so i think we were pretty conservative. the debate we should be having is not did the shutdown hurt the economy, but what can we do going forward. what can we do to strengthen growth, what can we do to create more jobs. >> as we mentioned, the president is going to be going to new orleans and focusing on increasing trade exports during that speech in new orleans. can you give us a preview? >> sure. one of the things you need for expoerlrts is you need good infrastructure to move your goods to your ports and you need good ports to ship your goods out of the country. when you invest in infrastructure, you don't just create infrastructure jobs today, you also help your exp
to get a job out there, even though i have all the qualifications, they still don't hire people. >> the cut is automatic. it was built into the 2009 stimulus bill and expires today. steeper cuts could be on the way. house republicans want to cut $39 billion from the program over the next ten years. democrats are outraged. >> so what these guys are doing are really going to war against seniors, against the kids, against working families who are trying to get buy on $9, $10 an hour. >> it's a disgrace that in the 21st century we would be cutting these types of programs. >> first of all, this is a moral disgrace. this is not the american way. people deserve to eat. many people go through challenges in their lives. the majority of people on snap, food stamp benefits, actually are working. they're part of the working poor. >> i want to bring in our company, the "washington post" columnist, dana milbank, manu raju from politico. good morning, guys. >> good morning. >> what's this shaping up to look like, dana? how big a battle is this going to be? >> it's been an ongoing battle for a
just don't know if i can do this, as he prepared for the second debate. let me bring in our company, editor in chief of reason magazine, matt welch and the "washington post" politics reporter, jackie kucinich. good morning. >> good morning. >> let's start with chris christie because he's got an election he's almost sure to win tomorrow. he's looking to send a message but as also passed over to be the vice presidential nominee. let me play for you what mitt romney said on "meet the press." >> i know that the vetting people who went through that analysis and put together their report laid everything out, but frankly there was nothing they found that wasn't already part of the public record and that hadn't already been dealt with effectively by chris christie. so there was nothing new there. and chris, by the way, chris could easily become our nominee and save our party and help get this nation on the right track again. they don't come better than chris christie. >> and, matt, these issues were vetted in the local press. but a national audience is different. we're looking at a doj inve
from states where they don't have state exchanges or their state exchanges are not faring well. >> emily, you know the supreme court also deciding to take up a case involving obama care. the question here is whether for-profit corporations with religious owners must provide contraception. now, we already know there are some exceptions f churches and with this institutions. >> this case is separate, like you said, from other groups or businesses that might have religious affiliations. there's actually a separate case involving those kinds of institutions, but that's not as far along in the pipeline as this case is. this case involves secular companies, one of which is hobby lobby, the well-known craft store. another is a cabinet maker owned by mennonites. and the question is do these corporations because the owners have religious affiliations, can they exercise freedom of religion in choosing whether to provide certain types of contraception to their employees. the lower courts are divided on this, and that's why both the government and the companies want the supreme court to de
. we don't want obama care. we don't want more big government. >> i'm scared to death of what obama care is doing to virginians. terry mcauliffe is scared to death of what obama care is doing to terry mcauliffe. and tomorrow, we need to make his fears come true. >> now, obviously if cuccinelli wins, it would be a huge upset in your state. the polls certainly indicate that this is going to be a win for terry mcauliffe, but is this a win for politicians across the country? >> well, it depends. if they're clear, like terry has been, that he supports the affordable care act, in fact he's going to enfranchise 400,000 people onto the medicaid rolls if he's elected who would not get health insurance if cuccinelli is elected, and of course terry brought president obama in sunday. so he's not running away from the affordable care act. and the president was very clear. so i agree with marco rubio for general send a very clear message to the country but i think it's a very different message than what he anticipates. >> back in 2010 republicans picked up 63 seats after the health care vote. are
equal rights in marriage, in the workplace, republicans have not done well and you don't have to look very far. just look to the 2012 elections when you had people like todd aiken. so this is a risky strategy for lindsay graham. it could play well with his base and it could alienate independents and women. >> it seems to be that the democrats are not very worried about this. in fact, terry reed says he's hoping to bring this up for a vote. republicans embrace this bill at their own peril, but i wonder if there is a risk when you look at that poll that we showed and they put 42 senators as pro-choice and 46 on the other side. >> i think there is a risk for the republicans here. they continue to look extreme. they look anti-woman, and, you know, for most americans the abortion issue is settled. democrats are not trying to expand abortion rights. so, you know, most people, i think, do have a problem with abortion in this country, with but they want the majority of americans want abortion to be legal. they want limits around it and the limits are in place, so i think the republicans are p
think this plays out? >> i don't think it's going to pass. she's going to need 60 votes. even if she does get 60 votes, getting that through a house senate conference committee is extremely grim. given the opposition from a lot of the defense hawks, from the pentagon to her proposal, there probably will be some changes to how the military prosecutes these cases and deals with these internally, but i don't think there's going to be taking this outside of the chain of command given the staunch opposition from a lot of powerful folks on capitol hill and beyond. >> i want to bring in captain lori manning, who is director of the military project, sara plumber is a former marine and sexual assault survivor. good morning. >> good morning. >> both of you, as i understand, favor senator gillibrand's amendment taking the power of prosecution out of the chain of command and you appeared at a presser with her yesterday. captain manning, we all know the statistics are horrifying. thousands of sexual assaults every year. having served in the navy for more than 25 years, why do you think senator gi
thing isn't running more smoothly. i don't think anybody wants to put this over on the public. but nobody for one second believes that my committee, which is now hearing this led by my good friend darrell issa wants to fix anything. otherwise they would not have snatched the i.t. people off of this 24/7 ritual they have been in, which is equivalent to fixing a plane while it's flying and insisted and indeed subpoenaed them to come and testify before us. >> even if, congresswoman, the reason for this hearing is not to fix it, if that's not what darrell issa is talking about, is there a problem that the president made a deadline that now it seems he may not be able to keep, and that's different from what you're saying, for example, about the massachusetts rollout. because he did draw a line in the sand himself and say this is going to be up and working. here's the date. and now it looks like they're not going to be able to make that date. >> yeah, and he's apologized for that and he should have himself read the fine print and warned people that, look, this is, after all, i.t. we
to the south, is that a symbol or signal of something changing in the climate or is just mother nature, we don't know at this point. >> obviously when you look over the last 10, 20 years there has been an increase in extreme weather. massive flooding in colorado, hurricane sandy last year, the hurricane in haiti, of course hurricane katrina in 2005. what is the latest thinking in the science community on the global change connection? >> well, you have a couple of different things there. in terms of these tropical systems, hurricanes and typhoons. they're exactly the same system, just different names in different parts of the world. the consensus is a warmer climate does not dramatically affect either the number or intensity or has not been. in the future the climate models indicate there might actually be fewer of them but stronger because of the way the atmosphere is changing. but the atmosphere is changing and some of these other kinds of things like the flooding in colorado, like the intense heat wave that we've seen in russia a few years ago and over the eastern part of the u.s., these wou
're not going to go speak with them? >> i don't have anything to say. >> i want to bring in our company. philip bump is staff writer at the wire, attorney faith jenkins and bob herbert. good to see all of you. let's start with the legal issues first. so zimmerman has his first court appearance today. the charges are aggravated assault with a weapon, which is a felony, battery, domestic violence and criminal mischief. how serious could this be? >> it's very serious. we're talking about felony charges here. and because it's florida, they have these bump-ups because a gun is involved so you're going to see the prosecutors go before the judge today. they're going to present the facts that they believe support their bail recommendation that they're going to ask the judge for and the case is going to go from there, i expect, and george zimmerman will enter a not guilty plea and then the judge is going set some sort of bail. i suspect especially because there's a gun involved and because at this point there's a pattern of behavior here that's emerging. >> and that pattern of behavior being? >> well, a
now? does it mean more gets done? >> i don't think so. the senate was grinding to a halt anyways heading into 2014. there's not, you know, too many sort of big-ticket items that the president was looking to pass through the end of the year into next year. there's still big items. the defense authorization bill, there's a potential budget deal that is, you know, possibly forth coming in the next few weeks, so clearly there are things that need to be done but the senate is, you know, for all intents and purposes is stopping ahead of the election and, you know, it's hard to see something like immigration getting done, even though it passed the senate. but going back, seeing immigration have a chance because the well is poisoned there. but it has been for a while. >> is that what has happened? look, nobody thought that even in the senate there was the sense of unity, but they were able, lynn, at various times to get things done. democrats say they had no choice, though. is there a chance, and even a likelihood, that the republicans will make them pay for this? >> the answer is, chris
security challenges of the day. and we don't do well in negotiation if we are internally divided. >> but you know what the argument is, including from some on your own side that this was an uneven agreement. that in fact iran got more than it gave, and they can't be trusted on this. >> well, i agree that they can't be trusted and no one is asking for a blind trust or any trust really of the iranians, that's part of the reason why the agreement also includes daily inspections of these nuclear facilities, something that we've never had. at the same time, though, whether it's an uneven bargain, i think it may be uneven in our favor in the sense that what we're giving up for a very small amount of financial relief, we're gaining a freeze on their nuclear program and a roll back of their nuclear program. in the absence of this deal, if we just continue to negotiate over the next six months trying to get to a final agreement half a year from now, they would be continuing to enrich, continuing to install new centrifuges which is prevented by this agreement. so look, if you compare it to
Search Results 0 to 29 of about 30 (some duplicates have been removed)